CSG industry wants to hide from its toxic name

The words "coal seam gas" remain highly controversial and unpopular, which is why the industry wants to rebrand itself as "natural gas" as a way to avoid debate, writes Matt Grudnoff.

Just as those in the world of Harry Potter refused to utter Lord Voldemort's name for fear of their lives, the gas industry appears equally frightened of using the words 'coal seam gas' for fear it might hurt its profits.

But just as calling Voldemort 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' didn't make him disappear, calling coal seam gas (CSG) something else doesn't make it any less of a concern for the community.

The gas industry has been hit by an increasing number of restrictions on its CSG projects at the same time that both sides of politics have been talking about reducing green tape for resource projects. Exclusion zones in NSW and new water triggers from the federal government show the level of unease that governments and the general public have about CSG.

According to the Liberal-National Party, the industry has failed to gain a social licence, with NSW Resources Minister Chris Hartcher chiding the industry at its national conference, saying, "Industry did not engage in the debate; industry stood back and allowed the debate to happen."

But how did the industry get to the point where the conservative side of politics is implementing two kilometre exclusion zones around homes?

Avoiding the issue seems to be the industry's plan, with new survey data from The Australia Institute showing that 36 per cent of Australians have not heard of coal seam gas. The industry tries not to mention CSG by name and in all kinds of ways it has avoided engaging with people's concerns.

It has refused to do any work to look at how much natural gas is leaking out of the ground because the industry is using the controversial method of extracting CSG known as fracking. This is a process that splits the rocks underground - where the natural gas is trapped - in order to force it out. With a complete lack of information from the industry, the government has been forced to commission the CSIRO to conduct research in this area.

The industry in its recent multi-million dollar advertising campaign has not made any attempt to allay the general public's concerns about the environmental effects of CSG extraction. In The Australia Institute survey, the top concerns people had about CSG were damage to the local environment, negative impacts on farming land, damage to people's health, and water contamination.

Instead, the advertising campaign focused on possible economic benefits of expanding the natural gas industry, including the amazing claim that it was responsible for 100,000 jobs last year. According to ABS, the industry employs about 20,000 people in total.

Apart from extraordinary claims of economic benefits, the most interesting thing about the advertising campaign is what it hasn't talked about. Nowhere does it mention CSG, despite the purpose of the campaign being to remove restrictions on CSG extraction. The advertising instead talks about natural gas, a term that is far less controversial.

The industry clearly understands how the general public views CSG because just after the federal election, it gleefully reported that it had conducted exit polls in a small number of electorates where it asked voters if natural gas was an issue for them. No one said it was. This fits in with the industry's desire to keep a low profile, but what is really interesting is that they asked about 'natural gas', not CSG. The response may well have been very different if they had used the words coal seam gas.

These words are so toxic that the NSW government has proposed changing them. Rather than referring to 'coal seam gas' or 'CSG', it would instead be called 'natural gas from coal seams'. Natural gas from coal seams might be technically correct, but we are left to wonder why the term needed expanding.

But the real question is why the industry is avoiding the debate. Could it be avoiding discussing environmental concerns because it fears that the public might be correct? Is its strategy not to engage a delaying tactic in the hope that CSG projects can be up and running before the full extent of the damage is known?

Whatever the reason, the restrictions on CSG do not look like going away anytime soon. Vote compass asked if people thought restrictions on CSG should be reduced and 60 per cent of respondents from New South Wales said no. With the industry afraid to even talk about CSG, it seems intent on exaggerating the economic benefits, running a baseless gas shortage scare campaign, and hoping that the 36 per cent of Australians who have not heard of CSG don't find out about it anytime soon.

Matt Grudnoff is a senior economist at The Australia Institute. View his full profile here.

Hotspringer:

18 Oct 2013 10:28:55am

There is a vast difference between natural gas (which just has to be drilled for and comes out from the ground under its own pressure) and coal seam gas (which has to be forced out by chemicals dissolved in water and pumped into the earth crust). Natural gas is much, much safer for the environment and people. I understand we have an abundance of it and are almost giving it away to other countries. We have no need to pollute the water table and poison our streams with fracking!

Greig:

18 Oct 2013 1:18:17pm

Regrettably Sydney's town gas supply (currently piped form Moomba) will run out (become uneconomical) before the now delayed pipeline infrastructure from the PNG fields will be completed. We need CSG or Sydney town gas will not be available. The impact of that outcome would be disastrous.

I suspect gas suppliers don't really care what happens. When facing a situation of no gas supply, Sydney residents will pay any price to maintain supply. The suppliers will make their money either way.

Paul:

18 Oct 2013 1:30:57pm

Coal seam gas isn't "forced out by chemicals". It is induced to flow out of the coal seams by a lowering of the groundwater pressure in the coal seam. The chemicals (& sands etc) are used in fracturing the coal seam to increase its permeability so that the groundwater pressure can be lowered by pumping.

QC Bob:

18 Oct 2013 2:37:42pm

Dead set 100% right there Hotspringer. Australia is gas rich and there is no need to frac Coal. Coal actually often acts as the "cap rock" with natural gas being trapped underneath in porous Formations. Every vehicle in Australia should be running on gas. We wouldn't need to import petroleum.Only logis I can see is CSG is close to the Eastern seaboard. Capitalism, open up new primary resources for exploitation, at its worse. We don't need to do it.

GS:

The surface area of the relatively porous coal in the ground is enormous and the methane is held on the coal surface by the high water pressures within the seam (which is usually an aquifer).

The water in the seam is pumped out, and as the inseam pressure is reduced the gas is desorbed from the coal surface and moves through the fractures in the coal seam to the borehole (or any connecting fracture to the surface).

All the fracking does is increase the number of fractures the gas can move through - making the well more productive.

QC Bob:

18 Oct 2013 5:17:10pm

Must say I've never heard of porous Coal before GS. Coal has cleats and is tite.Would love to see you firstly dewater a Coal seam and then produce methane from it without fracking. Any free flowing gas would be coming from the Formation underneath, with the Coal seam perhaps feeding it but also acting as the cap rock.

gnome:

18 Oct 2013 2:59:51pm

Some oil gushes at first, and some needs to be pumped. Whether it's shale seam gas or coal seam gas, the principal is identical.

Early last century, oil drillers discovered the value of "dynamiting" their drill holes to increase permeability, and therefore oil flow. Fraccing is just dynamiting without explosives and happens for all natural gases, including coal seam gas, when the initial flow slows.

There is no industrial, economic or environmental difference between shale seam gas or coal seam gas. The only difference, chemical, varies from place to place. Only something like the "Australia Institute" could pretend the name matters, because they are campaigning against one but not the other.

Don't you care, that they are playing on the name for a scare campaign, even though it is effectively a meaningless difference?

Bill:

18 Oct 2013 3:35:49pm

The CSG wanting to change its name, does that not tell you something? That is exactly what the CSG industry is doing poisoning the environment and people for corporate greed. To rename it as natural gas is far from the truth, Australia has plenty of its own natural gas for years to come and if governments past and present did not sell it overseas at bargain basement prices to grandiose themselves we would not need CSG. One has only to look at the past history of CSG to see what it has destroyed on a grand scale.

FB:

18 Oct 2013 4:02:59pm

Where is this abundance of conventional natural gas for use in the eastern states?? There is some in the Cooper Basin onshore Australia but that is declining. Indeed companies are looking at Cooper Basin as the next big area for shale gas largely due to the existing infrastructure there. There is some in the Bass fields offshore Vic but these are also declining. There was recently an agreement for NSW to obtain gas from these fields, but it certainly wasnt cheap. There is also some in big fields offshore WA but these require megaprojects to produce the gas (see Gorgon, Pluto etc). There is no way to get this gas to the Eastern Seaboard other than to liquify it in WA, ship it to the eastern states and regassify it in Sydney. There isnt some magical way to get cheap conventional gas to NSW.

For the record it is all natural gas. What you are referring to is conventional natural gas which comes out of the reservoir under it's own pressure. Unconventional is gas from coal seams / trapped in shale rock which needs to be fracked. The gas is all the same and it's all 'natural'.

Geologist:

18 Oct 2013 4:08:06pm

Rubbish. Coal Seam Gas does not need to be forced out by chemicals or the process you advocate. Coal Seams naturally contain methane, it desorbs from the surface cleats of coals during depressurisation. Boyle's Law. Coal may sit directly under an aquifer (which may be used for irrigation). If you produce water from the bore, then you lower the pressure of the aquifer. The coal - then dewaters naturally into the aquifer and eventually you reach a point where gas desorbs from the cleats and produces naturally. Which is why some farmers have gas in their bores (incidentally - that is how CSG was found in QLD - by accident). Now.. the process of CSG production is to accelerate the dewatering process. You can do that by introducing a fracture network by fracture stimulation (you don't need chemicals - you can frac with water and sand) and physics limits the extent to how far a fracture will propogate. Secondly - you encourage the coal to dewater by lowering the reservoir pressure. The problem is how oil companies treat the water. This should be done to a standard and removing all elements in the water where it can be sold at a very low price to a farming community for irrigation. Understand the process - understand the limitations, understand the environmental impact. There is a lot of 'bad science' and 'bad press' out there from both sides of the fence. It is poorly understood by the general populus.

darn:

Morestone:

18 Oct 2013 10:29:16am

Usual silly over the top response one expects from some Drum contributors. According to a reliable internet source as of 2010 around 70% of Australia's known gas reserves were conventional natural gas and 30% CSG. Why the indecent haste and pressure then to develop CSG, surely the industry has time to demonstrate to the community it can be done responsibly with no deleterious side effects??

mikemwa:

18 Oct 2013 12:56:52pm

Morestone your question should really be why are the CSG companies so eager to access this resource when there is so much conventional gas available. The answer is simple these mostly overseas owned companies want to take the money and run before the damage it does is revealed.

There is plenty of evidence in the USA about the permanent damage that CSG extraction does to local water supplies. In a country where water is a scarce, and therefore a valuable commodity doing anything which risks ruining that resource is incredibly stupid.

whogoesthere:

18 Oct 2013 11:17:52am

I find this mind-set frustrating, the either/or. Either keep burning and burning OR go back to a cave.

Humans are supposed to be smart, we have been getting our energy from burning stuff right back to cave men with their fires. Now, with all our science and technology the best we can do is still burn baby burn ?.

Imagine if all the meny spent on oil wars was spent on R&D. Renewable are the future (if we've got one), let's get them going !!. People should be excited about them, but just get stuck in the same old mind set, short term thinking, and fear of change.

Greig:

18 Oct 2013 7:00:58pm

Well Mr Z, since fuel costs are only 20% of electricity prices, the fact that sun and wind are free is irrelevant. What is important is that the cost plus margin (price) of renewable energy is far more than the equivalent for fossil fuels - it is just way more expensive, and nobody wants to pay more for their electricity.

Lawrence of Bavaria :

18 Oct 2013 2:33:33pm

Thanks whogoesthere for going there. It took humans thousands of years to learn how to walk upright only for our politicians to bow to international oil and gas multis for short-term profit. You are right, it is in our nature to invent and to innovate. The name "Renewables" says it all. They are an infinite power source. Politicians ar not. They are "Expendables". Let's hope we wake up earlier than 5 past 12.

ratatat:

gnome:

18 Oct 2013 3:13:58pm

Renewables may well be the future but the present renewables aren't the past, present or future. Germany sometimes gets almost 25% of its power from solar, but often doesn't get any of its power from solar or any other renewable source, so any renewable generation it does have is just duplication of reliable low-cost sources.

On those cold frosty days when the sun isn't out and there's no wind, people still like a warm cup of something with their breakfast. Even the fabulously expensive experiments in Spain can't give you any power late on the first cloudy day.

Solve that problem and you will be the wealthiest person on the planet. Be just as excited as you like, because no-one looks like beating you to the solution.

whogoesthere:

18 Oct 2013 7:20:01pm

'no-one looks like beating you to the solution.'

True, that's my point. But imagine if we put as much effort into it as we did the space race, or the arms race, or even buying bloody apps !. People aren't interested, I get that, I wish they were. I read alot of sci-fi, that's my problem !.

Ted:

18 Oct 2013 12:20:43pm

I recently heard from a reliable source that solar generation in Germany is being so successful that they are using their excess power from PV to pump water up at their hydro-electric facilities during the day to help provide night time base-load power.

Greig:

Greig:

18 Oct 2013 1:04:22pm

Try cooking your meals with solar. Or heating your home in the dead of winter after 3 continuous days of heavy rain.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that solar is not the answer, it is just one (niche) supply for certain applications. It cannot replace centralised baseload supply of electricity from sources like nuclear.

And it is na?ve to claim that all it needs is a big investment in R&D, and everything will be solved. The development of commercial technology does not rely on wishful thinking or picking winners for ideological reasons.

And don't start up with nuclear is so dangerous and dirty, and nuclear fuel is finite. IFRs are safe, waste disposal is solved, and the fuel will last for millennia. And it is a fraction of the price of solar, and will remain so for a very long time - claiming that it is at cost parity is a demonstrable lie. We are not compelled for any reason to go with solar, when there is an alternative that in every respect is superior.

LeftRightOut:

18 Oct 2013 6:39:40pm

Greig

You might want to do a little research and not be so naive. There are eco villages in northern Europe including Scotland and Sweden that use little to no energy to keep their homes warm in the winter. Its called insulation, airflow and clever design - the stuff that comes out of R&D. FYI these countries get a bit cooler in the winter than Aus.

GS:

18 Oct 2013 2:57:22pm

Germany is an interesting example, mainly because they are going on a significant power station rebuilding program - with coal being the preferrred fuel.

What the Germans have found is that due to the natural variability of the solar generation (in January this year it generated no electricity because of the weather - why anyone would build solar capacity in a region which gets on average 1 hour of sunlight per day in winter is beyond me) they need backup. What is happening is that they pay subsidies to renewables to make them cheap enough to displace fossil fueled capacity, but then they need to pay subsidies to the fossil fuel generators to be backup for the renewables.

And the recommendation to do some research is wise. Wood Mackenzie forecasts that coal will be the dominant fuel in 2040 due to Asia's recognition that coal is abundant and cheap - no matter what the renewables lobby say.

Serenity:

18 Oct 2013 11:04:14am

Well, darnWhy don't you go and buy a property where csg is operating and tell everyone you don't mind the smell of gas, or the chemicals leaching into the water table. The noise of the machinery, your ruined land, etc.

It is the FARMERS who don't want CSG on their land.Go and tell them at a forum your views and how you don't give a "darn" about their livelihoods.

LeftRightOut:

OUB :

18 Oct 2013 3:52:05pm

I thought methane gas was odourless? Household gas has a strong smell because of additives, a safety feature. Do you drink groundwater? Noisy machinery? I don't know. Would you be referring to the construction phase only, in a paddock far, far away? And people around Nimbin don't want fluoride in their water because of the fear it will give them cancer. Same reckless fearmongering do you reckon?

Okay, I've given you some clues. Why not scrap this post and recast it more sensibly.

marg1:

18 Oct 2013 11:50:31am

darnAustralia won't even get this gas - it is all being sent overseas. So whoever lives near these toxic waste dumps will get no benefit but all the bad effects. We could do the smart thing and go for renewables but wait the Liberals are too cosy with all their mates in the CSG, Coal and oil industries for that.

LeftRightOut:

18 Oct 2013 12:56:09pm

According to previous articles the majority of additional gas production will go overseas to help boost the bottom line of the gas companies. Why bother protecting our back yard when the rich have a great idea to get richer?

NWM:

18 Oct 2013 1:12:05pm

The UN has done research that shows the whole world can get its energy needs met by renewables (not nuclear). In our transition to a low CO2 economy we also need to get ourselves off our dependency on fossil fuel exports. There is no need for CSG, and it's time for fossil fuel industry leaders to start investing their profits of many years plus their government rebates into the renewable energy industry (including geothermal) and be clever in looking for opportunities in these fields such as helping customers of fossil fuels to get themselves off that dependency also. These leaders and their descendents can't escape from global warming either - we are all in this together. Profits at the expense of our environment and our climate is not acceptable.

darn:

mikemwa:

18 Oct 2013 1:54:08pm

Toxic Tony and his cronies have very little to say on CSG. All part of a cunning plan to avoid accountability when it goes pear shaped. Then they can sit back and blame it all on the states notwithstanding that they sat on their hands and did nothing to protect our precious water supplies.

Sceptical Sam:

darn says: "However what we ALL have is the angst of seeing more extreme weather patterns and watch like at present homes being destroyed and billions of dollars going up in flames."

Trouble is darn it, the IPCC does not agree with that analysis. Ignore the science if you like, but that just shows the level of ignorance that abounds on the Drum when it comes to any rational discussion on this or any other CAGW or energy related topic.

Stuffed Olive:

18 Oct 2013 2:48:18pm

Pity you appear to know so little about the implications of coal seam gas mining. It is not at all necessary - we have plenty of natural gas which does little damage in accessing it. The threat to underground water is enormous and our use of underground water is far far greater than many people understand.

prison:

18 Oct 2013 3:24:14pm

why is CSG banned in France, South Africa and Bulgaria? why are many other countries considering temporary bans?

It isnt just greens against this, its entire countries.

Build nuclear plants for all I care, just dont screw up agricultural land by fracking up the water table. Much of what gets put into the watertable as a result is harmful. check out gasland 2 for more info

OUB :

tomtoot:

18 Oct 2013 7:34:23pm

Strange comment OUB:"Isn't Gasland in the fiction category? It's not a documentary is it?"

It'sas fictional as the Abbott government being elected in Sept 7.

A documentary? how would you qualify as a documentary? - do you mean a programme that describes different opinion over say 30 minutes or an hour as a documentary - or what say a video evidence of gas bubbling through a river for 24/7 over 365 days

MD:

18 Oct 2013 5:24:06pm

Perhaps the same charge should be leveled against the people who complain about wind turbine noise syndrome? The only difference is that if the turbines are removed, there's no remnant ill-effect, whereas poisoned or drained aquifers can reduce or destroy the fitness of land for agriculture or habitation. The other difference, too, is that utility companies have to approach, negotiate and pay for the use of the land that wind turbines stand on without inconveniencing the owner, because wind turbine utilities don't have guaranteed right of access, whereas CSG explorers have marched on to farm land waving their exploration licenses with the same confidence as police officers with search warrants, and indeed, they've used police officers to enforce their right of access.

JoeBloggs:

18 Oct 2013 9:53:26am

These sorts of corporate PR actions are clearly indicative of an industry that is keenly aware that their activities are not in the best interests of the health of the population or the nation generally.

adam ant:

Worked for the Industrial Wind Turbines, and they are after all run by the same companies. AGL, Origin, BP, Shell, Chevron for example. Fossil fuel conspiracy? Absolutely.

And both wind and gas driving people from their homes in the name of huge profits.

But the Greens are willingly blind to the acoustic pollution of both industries- it is an inconvenient truth that acoustic pollution harms peoples health and wellbeing.Shame on the Greens for their strategic ignorance and double standards.No wonder they are losing their support.

Redfella:

Dean:

Oh the irony! We now have a situation where both the left and right are taking science free positions, just on different issues.

The right deny climate change which has strong evidence behind it but believe in harmful effects from "acoustic pollution" which has been disproved using blind trials.

The left on the other hand are still whipping up fear about GM foods, which have more evidence of safety then there is evidence of global warming, and exaggerating fears about CSG. The fracking "chemicals" are less harmful than pouring a Coke out onto the ground and the real danger is if the fracking process allows mixing of water and "gas" underground which can be avoided if done properly (I stress properly!).

So can we stop pretending politics is about science! Both sides are magicians trying to fool us with their tricks.

Sceptical Sam:

Sceptical Sam:

18 Oct 2013 2:13:33pm

You really do need to read a little more broadly on this topic Redfella because the wind turbine test standard IEC 61400-11 prevents a full accounting of wind turbine acoustic emissions by (1) requiring testing be done only under very smooth airflow conditions (shear <0.2), and (2) requiring A-weighting which filters out low-frequency emissions from analysis, and (3) requiring time averaging which hides dynamic modulations.

When tested in a non-biased way these bird-choppers are found to be inimicable to health.

Dr Who:

Serenity:

18 Oct 2013 11:05:53am

Adam antThe people that wind farms are driving from their lands are the ones subjected to the lies about "wind farm disease" that are told by the climate change denial industry.Most of them are leaving because their lands are becoming unproductive, not due to the wind-farms.

Shaime:

No it is not a fact. And pointing to an article in the Australian does not make it a fact. BTW did you even read the Australian article? It doesn't support your "claim".

So hey John, stop the rubbish and read the science. For starters, read Chapman et al. (2013), "Spatio-temporal differences in the history of health and noise complaints about Australian wind farms: evidence for the psychogenic, communicated disease hypothesis". Then "Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel January 2012 (Prepared for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Department of Public Health)". Then Crichton et al. (2013), "Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines?".

The Federal Senate Committee Inquiry into a bill calling for regulation of excessive noise from wind farms investigated health issues in late 2012. Here's what they concluded:

"The committee concludes that, while it is possible that the human body may detect infrasound in several ways, there is no evidence to suggest that inaudible infrasound (either from wind turbines or other sources) is creating health problems. In contrast, there is an established literature confirming the existence of psychogenic, or nocebo, effects in general, and at least one study suggesting they may be responsible for symptoms in some wind turbine cases."

Remove the blinkers Green ideologues. CSG is part of the ENERGY industry. Wind turbines are part of the ENERGY industry. The same ENERGY industry owns CSG and Wind factories. They seek profit ahead of concern for neighbours. And both wind and CSG can do harm to neighbours and the planet when not sited appropriately.

The only reason the Greens are not acting on acoustic pollution from CSG industry is that they received between 1 and 2 million dollars from the Wind industry for their senate campaign. Oh, and the fact they hitched their renewables nirvana to the false god of wind, which does not have the energy density required of the planet.

Miowarra:

18 Oct 2013 3:39:17pm

If you want to understand "acoustic pollution" go live in a home between the railway line and the Pacific Highway somewhere around Pymble or Turramurra, anywhere from Chatswood to Hornsby actually. (They're all in the "privileged" leafy North Shore suburbs of Sydney.)

You'll be very happy to cash in your super & spend all your kids' inheritance to buy a house right under a nice quiet wind turbine tower.

OUB :

18 Oct 2013 5:37:07pm

Oh come on, State Rail has done a lot of work to smooth and grind down the rail lines over recent years so that trains are a lot quieter than they were. The rail fleet has been modernised and quietened. Cars are quieter (maybe not trucks). On a public service pension you can afford double glazing to eliminate even more noise.

Walker KR:

18 Oct 2013 4:28:53pm

Anyone else notice the attempt to make this about wind farming?Couldn't help but notice the sabotage that occured when oil companies where given Gov. funding to invest in wind in the U.S, the spacktards went and put them all in a line, despite HUNDREDS of independant scientist telling them this would cause issues with efficiency and even cause damage to the turbines themselves and the surrounding environment.And it wasn't until this had already happened that they publicized the fact that they'd even done anything at all, and threw a negative spin on it.

rgb:

18 Oct 2013 10:23:49am

trying to compare or even link the harmful effects of coal seam gas to wind is ludicrous wind has been used extensively in european countries like denmark for nearly 30 years with no known side effectscoal seam gas is a relatively new industry which at best destroys layers of our earth with a deadly mix of cocktails and at worst these chemicals pollute our water tables or our environment all for short term profitsand does Australia have a shortage of natural gas ? no we dont in a couple of years we going to be the worlds largest exporter of natural gas and we have enough wells allready tapped and capped to last our markets a 100 years at current usage with more being found every daywe do not need coal seam gas

astone:

18 Oct 2013 1:51:46pm

Oh lordy, i just can't believe you think this stuff.

"coal seam gas is a relatively new industry which at best destroys layers of our earth with a deadly mix of cocktails and at worst these chemicals pollute our water tables or our environment all for short term profits"

micka:

18 Oct 2013 10:24:08am

So the industry would prefer a different name to avoid negative connotations; and the Australia Institute would prefer 'coal seam gas' because it carries negative connotations. You're as cunning as they are! How about we re-brand the Australia Institute the UnAustralia Institute.

Mr Zeitgeist:

18 Oct 2013 11:12:30am

Hi micka,

Like you, I'm all for calling it as it is.

Coal seam gas IS gas extracted from coal seams; under pressure using chemicals and that most valuable of resources: water which it then contaminates pollutes. The industry wants to "rebrand itself" using that soporific term "natural" to distract us from what it does.

No way.

BTW, Your argument of equivalence about the (Un) Australia Institute makes no sense at all.

OUB :

Ted:

18 Oct 2013 10:35:23am

I couldn't care less about PR campaigns and what they say or don't say. The big issue which is too big to ignore is that fracking damages the water table with unknown effects on the distances over which it occurs. Between coal mining on the Liverpool Plains and CSG everywhere we are sacrificing our arable land in the interest of a few quick bucks for multi-national corporations.

Any half responsible government would put a stop to it. In the absence of such a government, I guess the quicker they can demolish the artesian basin the better. Then we won't have to worry about the environmental impacts anymore. Of course in 20 years time we won't have any gas either.

NWM:

OUB :

18 Oct 2013 5:55:49pm

Do you realise how much water would be pumped up to the surface if they penetrated the GAB? How would they deal with that? Do you have examples of land being made unarable through CSG extraction? Salt has to be dealt with, it can't just be released willy nilly.

I really do think there is too much spin being put out on the issue and not enough fact. The CSG people must take some of the blame for this but the opponents too often come over as quite mad, not caring one bit about the veracity of their claims.

JDNSW:

18 Oct 2013 10:46:28am

CSG is a toxic brand because of a sustained campaign led by the Greens, with very little in the way of facts to back up the dangers claimed. Most of the "facts" are possible risks (but no comparison with other risks are mentioned), irrelevant, or taken from overseas where geology and regulations are quite different. Compared to many of our society's activities, CSG is quite benign.

Typical of the campaign has been the sustained use of the word "mining" by the ABC to describe activities that need a real stretch to call mining, but by using the term, together with coal, visions of huge open cut mines are raised, thus ensuring that listeners and viewers subconsciously equate CSG with open cut mining.

Gordon:

JoeBloggs:

Users of the ABC are keenly aware the CSG extraction is not done in open cut mines.

In fact i'd argue everyone with at least half a brain would be keenly aware you don't extract gas from an open cut mine (as the gas would leak out everywhere as gas is no a solid).

I'd also mention that the dangers of CSG extraction are well documented and well founded on solid scientific evidence, irrespective of any PR spin by the CSG industry who have a long history of misinformation (to put it nicely) about the effects of their activities (not to mention their prior use of extemely toxic substances which they claimed they didn't use despite them knowing full well they used them).

OntheRun:

18 Oct 2013 12:48:46pm

I have to agree. The difference is drilling under the ground to actually getting people under ground level.

Petroleum (which includes CGS), has a higher risk of explosions and leaks due to a liquid or gas escaping. Mining is more definitive for solids which like most solids do not spontaneously rise in the air on earth.

Hopefully most people have enough common sense to realize that the CSG companies would want to stop any loss of a valuable gas for simple economic reasons. An open cut gas operation would be ridiculous.

Mr Zeitgeist:

Reinhard:

18 Oct 2013 12:43:13pm

"CSG is quite benign." Malignant more like , I gather you are not aware of exactly what they pump into the ground when fracking.. Water, boron, silver, chlorine, copper, cadmium cyanide and zincat are pumped at such high pressure that it can lead to methane gas entering the water table"

OUB :

18 Oct 2013 6:19:52pm

What is your source for these claims Reinhard? Are these the chemicals used in Australia or elsewhere?

Water is not generally an issue, unless you overimbibe. What form of boron are you talking about? It doesn't appear in a pure form in nature. Borates are of low toxicity for mammals. Boric acid was used as an insecticide. Silver can be an issue but then again it depends on the concentration. Silver is used in some vaccines I think. Chlorine? As in salt do you reckon? Salt is used in the injecting fluids for fraccing. I'd be surprised if copper was put into the local groundwater. Cadmium and cyanide sound ugly. I'd be surprised, even if they formed a very stable compound. What is zincat? I can see a reference to it being a treatment for diarrhoea. Is it very dangerous? Wouldn't methane gas already be in the water table?

I am not being a smartarse but I do think you leap on this stuff a bit too eagerly Reiny. You are better equipped than most of us (including me) to be a bit more critical of some of the material put out on this issue.

NWM:

18 Oct 2013 1:17:06pm

But we don't need CSG in the first place....and I don't agree we think of CSG as open cut mines - it's more insidious, the idea of cracking open the rocks beneath us - isn't there a place in Indonesia where drilling has led to uncontrollable mud coming up to the surface and it can't be stopped? Whose to say something similar can't happen with CSG, as well as the risk to our water supplies. So why go there. We need to put a moratorium on all fossil fuel exploration and put that effort and money into renewables. How bleedingly obvious does it need to be before the dinosaur thinkers in the fossil fuel industry get the message. No more excuses, we have to find alternatives for all the products we derive from fossil fuels.

prison:

The fears about CSG are based on facts and events that have REALLY happened elsewhere. There are real precedents which people base their obections on and it isnt just tree huggers who are against CSG.

Our geology may be different to the US, but most of our CSG still contains methane, just like the US where whole communities were destroyed (see the gasland movies). People who were workng in CMM (CSG) built new communities and have abandoned their houses which are now worth nothing. The water tables became so polluted with methane that you could light up the well-heads on peoples properties....

and methane is only one of the harmful byproducts of this unsafe practice!

Hudson Godfrey:

18 Oct 2013 11:09:43am

It is as if a pattern might be emerging amount energy and resource corporations which dictates that if ever there are unanswered questions involving their activities then the thing do to is not to try and answer them so much as to convince us all the we don't want to hear the answers.

Clancy:

18 Oct 2013 11:29:24am

Lead, asbestos, tobacco, DDT - we've seen it all before.The fact that the CSG industry is looking at changing it's name and not engaging calmly with community and environmental concerns suggests to me that the companies are likely well aware that there is indeed a solid basis to community concern.

NWM:

18 Oct 2013 1:22:17pm

Just like the way the fossil fuel industry and their mates in the conservative, powerful media decided to use the more benign term "climate change", rather than "global warming" that was a more accurate and honest term. Pathetic and cowardly actions by those interested in lining their pockets with absolutely no care for the long term impacts of their industry on our planet and the way of life of our descendents.

Magpie:

18 Oct 2013 5:12:02pm

Uh, actually ?climate change? is more scientifically accurate. Really, we?re looking at an increase in the total energy in the system, which has a lot of different effects. One is, yeah, generally higher temperature in some parts of the earth (the oceans, for example), but other parts will see the impact of increased energy in the form of blizzards, droughts, floods, cyclones, etc.

?Global warming? suggests the whole globe gets warmer, which confuses people when they see some parts getting colder, or not changing in temperature at all. But it was NEVER expected that we?d just get a simple rise in temperatures across the board. Look at all the folk who point at fairly static (though still up-trending) air temperatures, without realising how much energy has gone into oceans, melting ice, and extreme weather events.

tsj:

18 Oct 2013 11:31:50am

They can call it whatever they like, but there is nothing natural about either the extraction process or the resultant environmental impact of coal seam gas mining. Like the supermarket foods designed to deceive an ignorant public with claims of being 'all natural' or 'fat free', it is just semantics. If the public needs to be manipulated and deceived into acceptance of this mining practice, surely that speaks volumes about how bad it is, or can be.

Pete:

18 Oct 2013 11:48:06am

Typical ABC journalism

90% of Queensland gas consumption currently comes from CSG which has now been supplying that state for over 15 years. If it were such a deleterious industry we would have seen verifiable evidence of this as opposed to scare stories...

GNJ:

18 Oct 2013 11:49:51am

Hmmmmmm......let me see. Could it be that Mr Reith's report won't be released until after most people have retired for the night??We suspect we already know what his recommendations for Victoria will be considering when he visited Mirboo North the town was closed down for electricity repairs and the people he saw in the street were non existent. Neither did he address himself in a public meeting that was held at the time. We have become so cynical with being dished out so much spin and here is more of it on the agenda. Who'd have thought? Let's call CSG natural gas! Well it is but the process to extract it and the ramifications to the environment is what concerns the likes of us.Water is our most precious commodity upon which all life depends. What's wrong with solar and promoting that industry. At least it is ours and on shore and not being sold off to China and India.Victoria is a small state in size so who wants to see the decimation of the caliber of NSW and Queensland here?Where are our values and what are our priorities really?

MJLC:

18 Oct 2013 11:50:34am

Clearly a case of folk with too little imagination and/or chutzpah. A quick scan of our fridge and pantry shows "Lite", "Cage-free", "Organic", "Dolphin-friendly", "Reduced salt" and "Low GI" are all options for anyone who wants to puff up an otherwise ordinary product into a veritable must-have. A bit more lateral thinking please gentlemen - to kick the ball off I'll offer up "New, improved CSG with no added MSG".

RosieA:

18 Oct 2013 12:13:37pm

Sad, isn't it. NSW is currently going up in flames, with many people devastated by the loss of their homes and property, and with untold damage to our wildlife and natural ecosystems. Climate scientists are warning us that such wildfire occurrences will increase with global warming consequent upon continued CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. And we have the fossil fuel industry still trying its hardest to foist upon communities, CSG developments. It is not just the problems from gas extraction, it is the problem with using fossil fuels. What has happened to ethics in our society, that some can continue to engage in activity that is to the long term detriment of us all. What sort of calamaties will it take, before we demand an end to fossil fuel use, full stop?

Ozchucky:

18 Oct 2013 12:29:50pm

Thanks Matt, well said.Apart from the documentary "Gasland", we do not hear much from American landowners about the devastation of their aquifers and landscapes by CSG. I suspect that is because many of them are paid "shut-up-and-go-away" money by the fossil fuel industry. No other explanation seems credible.

In the Australian context, the Four Corners "Gas Leak !" program was also illuminating, but it did not cover all the issues.* Fracking damages and contaminates aquifers.* CSG is still a fossil fuel, which will run out like oil and coal* CSG still puts the greenhouse gas CO2 into the atmosphere, when you burn it.* The methane in CSG is twenty times more efficient as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so when CSG leaks out of the ground around gas wells ..........

Those politicians who advocate and permit CSG drilling need to be investigated by anti-corruption authorities.

Rebranding Coal Seam Gas, is a bit like rebranding cigarettes.Coal seam gas, by any other name would still smell like peat.

Reinhard:

18 Oct 2013 12:38:22pm

"natural gas from coal seams'"I do wonder how much money they wasted on that little warm and fuzzy re-branding exercise. Like Collateral damage and extraordinary rendition before it, this is a ludicrous re-invention of something nasty to make it seem nice. For clarity of purpose they really should have re-named it : "Natural gas extracted from coal seams using hydraulic fracturing, injecting water, boron, silver, chlorine, copper, cadmium cyanide and zincat into the ground at such high pressure that it can lead to methane gas entering the water table"

Pun:

18 Oct 2013 12:47:43pm

What worries me most about the CSG industry push is the undermining of representative and democratic processes in the same ways as has happened in other countries where drilling and mining has been done over the objections and without the representation of the interests of local people.

We've seen the maps of the UNited States, heard the stories and reports of the underming of legislative measures if they attempt to control and balance the interests of others.

The interests of others include the basic human need for clean water and air. Humans can find sources of fuel other than CSG, but water and air are fundamental and necessary for human health and human life.

Representative democracy used to be seen as a basic social asset which allowed the representation not only of people, but of ideas. To narrow the field of approved policies in favour of the economic or financial gain of one industry is to a totalitarian gearing, not a representation of a plurality.

We don't need the polllution of representative democracy any more than we need pollution of the environment into which human life is ecologically and inextricably enmeshed.

We don't need our police forces and courts and politicians being co-opted into corporations as facilitators, enforcers of narrow interests against the interests of others in maintaining the basic conditions necessary to human life.

It's pretty tragic that there is even a need to argue that the basic law of human societies is the preservation of human life and that economic interests should be measured agisnt that basic law, not the other way around, that is, human life and health and the health of the environment on which life depends worthless if in conflict with corporate interests.

The cases on corporate damage to the environment are not new, are ongoing, the risks foreseeable.So what interest is being protected when people are being told that an industry has more rights than their right to life and good health.No public good.

Michael:

18 Oct 2013 12:49:23pm

For most people who dont want csg it is not about the gas but how and where it is mined. In January 2012 our community of the Scenic Rim in Queensland blockaded an Arrow Energy csg exploration rig for ten days. We were asking that before any work be done that a study be done into the aquifer below the Scenic Rim on how it recharged and how it discharged and what possible effects csg could have on it, considering that the Australian water commission has sugested that each csg well could use up to three megalitres per year a request for this study seemed quite reasonable. The people of the Scenic Rim also asked that all water bores be basline tested for water levels and for water analysis. This would mean that if csg came to our region we could keep Arrow accountable for any variance in water levels and quality. The other request was for open and public consultion in a number of places within the Scenic Rim where people could ask questions and hear answers from a broad range of concerns.

Arrow energy refused to do any of these requests from our Community. What is so wrong with csg that they would not work with our community to see wether or not csg could be something good or bad for our community? It was an opportunity that Arrow energy squaundered. The LNP ( because of our communitys actions) of Quensland have now declared the Scenic Rim free of both coal mines and csg.

Peter the Lawyer:

18 Oct 2013 1:18:58pm

I love the conservative ALP supporters and greenies. Nothing new is any good to them, unless it is some harebrained Heath Robinson cotraption that costs the earth and actually =causes more pollutuion to produce than it saves in operation.

Anyway, to them cheap energy is evil because it means that non-lefties can live happy lives of prosperity and abundance.

The end logic of greenies is that about 1 tenth of the world's population be allowed to live and then only in caves. There would be no light after dark and everyone would have to wear gras skirts and live off nuts and berries.

Katherine:

18 Oct 2013 5:46:06pm

CSG is not "cheap". It costs water, air, soil and lives. Road upgrades for CSG trucks, Port expansions, and Power line infrastructure for wells, compressors and worker accommodation cost the taxpayer. Light, noise and air pollution cost the sanity of anyone living within 5km of these industrial zones. Gas prices for Australians will increase to export parity. And who bears the cost of the uncleanupable toxic mess when these companies make their money and disappear over the horizon? Our population will certainly be reduced without enough clean water to drink. This industry is only "cheap" for the pirates plundering our resources. Compare this to the cost of Australian manufactured and owned alternative energy structures such as solar and wind to take up an increased power demand on existing power stations. I am not a "greenie" or a "lefty" just an ex-farmhand with direct experience of the CSG industry who has bothered to do additional research. Leave your desk Peter and go and see for yourself - if you are a lawyer you can certainly afford an airfare and do some research before you trumpet your "logic" - pity your clients if you use unsubstantiated opinions like these as evidence in court

OUB :

18 Oct 2013 7:23:14pm

Isn't CSG piped to its destination? I really can't see them processing the stuff on site so as to make it transportable by truck. If any infrastructure costs are borne by governments wouldn't they make a profit from them? Hell, I live within a kilometre of an industrial zone in suburban Sydney, does that make me five times more insane than someone living just within 5 kilometres of an industrial site? Which toxic mess? What lives? What emissions have you allowed for in the construction of your clean green solar and wind assets? Not enough clean water to drink? Hmmm.....

Before you sling off about other people substantiuating their claims you would do well to calmly reread your post and reflect on whether it was an honest assessment of the situation or an emotional rant. Seriously.

Mr Crab:

18 Oct 2013 1:43:46pm

Wow ! Corporate mining giants exploiting our natural resources with little interest in contributing to the long term science of their extractive activities - and we are surprised?

I do not want to live in a cave and I am not emotively driven by these issues, however minimising the environmental harm and long term environmental sustainability have been taken out of the picture it seems. Why are final mining voids (pits) in Australia allowed by the government but in the US they must be filled in and form part of the sustainable water catchment. The US learned from the Canadian disasters (long term environmental pollution), in the early part of the 20th century - check out the hole story.

I have worked as an environmental consultant to both CSG and Mining for over 20 years and my direct experiences are that the EPA, DEHP, DERM, DOHP (whatever they are called in each state) are toothless and generally employ young graduates without mining experience. In 20 years I have experienced 3 environmental audits from the regulator, this includes positions on mine sites where I have been employed for several years. Generally when they arrive onsite they are only shown the good stuff anyway (they don't know where too look).

Environmental compliance costs companies money and with consultants is one of the first things to go when economic times are tough. General Managers and MD's hide behind their environmental staff and regularly engage in lip service to the regulator, with in reality, no plans to spend the money on compliance. Environmental Mangers do not control spend but are the perfect shield for organisations.

In my opinion compliance with mining licenses / authorities is haphazard. The industry is self regulated and required to self report, guess what happens then.........

astone:

18 Oct 2013 1:48:08pm

"But the real question is why the industry is avoiding the debate."

Ummmm- the industry is doing a lot of engagement. They are doing a lot discussing. There are also universities and institutions all over the country doing independent research. Most of which is publicly available.

"Could it be avoiding discussing environmental concerns because it fears that the public might be correct?"

No - many in the the community don't know what they are talking about. How could they "correct". Scared, yeah probably. Ignorant, most definitely. Hysterical, yes some of them.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to research risks and impacts, but the debate has entered into this realm where fact and information is not even valued. It's just too easy to jump on the band wagon. Remember when biofuels were going to result in us all starving? Some rational discussion with information and facts is what is needed. Not more ignoramuses stiring the emotional pot to try and conjure up mass hysteria.

Aus_Jeff:

18 Oct 2013 1:57:12pm

I have a solution, each well head that is drilled, a bond of say 20 million is given eg like the Rental board, and once the well runs dry, a comprehensive environment assessment is done and if it finds damage, the bond is used to clean it up also legislate that the company directors sign a Charter of Environment that stipulates that if there environment impact assessment was incorrect or misleading or just plain wrong and underestimates the impact on the environment then they will be subject to criminal charges ( even if they have left the company ). Perhaps these measures might change slow down the drive for CSG.

tomtoot:

Maynard:

18 Oct 2013 2:22:21pm

You are so right all more efficient means of gaining energy must be put through as many hoops as possible until it goes away.We Novocastrians understand this well since BHP closed and thousands of well paid jobs were gone forever.Good one bro. Our Town.

GraemeF:

18 Oct 2013 3:07:55pm

At least the Coalition is not scrapping Labor's legislation to extend the PRRT to land based activities. So while they are destroying farmlands and state forests they will at least be contributing more to government revenue.

Dre Diamond:

18 Oct 2013 3:31:22pm

Two words people... Overunity Device... look it up

Free energy, without any consumption of any material... and you can build a simple one at home, if your willing to take the time to sift through the internet to find it... and no, i'm not going to give you a link...

tomtoot:

18 Oct 2013 3:43:33pm

We don't need CSG to meet our gas demands for the future.

We are being subjected to fracking and all the negatives associated with it for the sole purpose of mining company profits

Just a week or so ago Greg Hunt was parading the paddock to glorify the SANTOS CSG exploration in Northern New South Wales - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-03/pilliga-csg-wells-not-22controlled-action223a-hunt/4997730

DMUN:

18 Oct 2013 4:01:34pm

I wonder if this will affect the Liberal/National relationship. I suspect that those Nationals who represent the man on the land might feel a little sold out by their big city brothers with their mining mates. After all this issue has farmers and greenies on the same side of the political debate.

Why? Because now it involves their home, livelihood, and history. Quell surprise. Special case, agrarian socialists.

I distrust CSG on a technical basis, and I have grave misgivings on what might happen to ground water, but, when I see the elitist farming folk complaining about their own self-interest, I turn a redder shade of blue.

Walker KR:

18 Oct 2013 5:21:42pm

CSG and "Fracking" are a waste of time, money, people and natural resources. It's methods are filthy and toxic, and cause massive destruction in areas all over the world where it has been implemented, causing sinkholes and oil/chemical pollution when the segregate rises with the gas it was suppose to push out, often taking with in black oil that sits on the surface like a lake of tar, and requires massive effort to clean.It's an attempt by old, decrepit fools in control of foreign agencies to profiteer from extorting confusion, lies and fear tactics, before they die. It's just not worth the energy it takes to prepare for and implement, not even thinking about the clean up after, which could take years, and god only knows what the chemicals they pump into the ground do once they've been subject to a few years of millions of tonnes of pressure, and geothermal heat.

OhMy:

18 Oct 2013 6:35:39pm

The age of fossil fuels is ending. Would it not be sensible to put our efforts into more sustainable energy? Gas, coal, petroleum.....they are all limited. They will all run out eventually, whether it is in 50 years or 150. We need to look ahead, not back.

OUB :

18 Oct 2013 7:03:33pm

I have difficulty seeing why the CSG folk would pander to their opponents by rebranding the product. As for not engaging in debate I can't understand it. My guess would be that for every sensible answer given they'd be met with yet another baseless assertion, that the people involved do not want their questions answered, they just want their beliefs (prejudices?) confirmed. The Greens are happy to serve up such slop in volume. So perhaps the CSG folk think they would be wasting their time while opening themselves up to abuse and threats.

Free trade is the oldest argument in federal politics and the issue that literally defined the federation era but opposition exists to the TPP, courtesy of the Investor-State Dispute Resolutions clause.